1. Access to information technologies (IT) should be considered a human right. In our complex world of today, having access to such technologies and knowing how to use them are inescapable conditions for full citizenship.
2. Existing experiences show that the use of IT for public participation
is useful and operative, but there is still vast room for improvement.
Research and development on this subject will likely improve
dramatically both the scope and the quality of the use of new
IT for public information and participation.
3. There is already adequate
technology to provide much better information and participation
opportunities than those commonly in place today. Although not
widely used in practice, there are many examples of existing
tools for the dissemination of information and for public participation
on such different issues as county, city, and natural resources
planning, environmental impact assessment, small-scale community
decision-making, global issues such as climate change, negotiation
helpers, monitoring the quality of the environment (including
the concept of augmented reality), monitoring administrative
or legislative processes going on in local, national or international
institutions. Working examples of all those and more have been
reviewed at the Conference.
4. The question that arises then is: why is this potential not being more widely used and explored? Some key reasons have been advanced and discussed at the Conference:
a) Lack of political will. The "powers that be" often
do not facilitate the dissemination and exchange of information.
Two simple widespread examples: (i) environmental impact statements,
which are public by definition in many countries, are not usually
posted on the Web, despite the full availability of new IT means
at costs lower than other means of information; (ii) most of
the information held by the Administrations (and paid for with
taxpayers money) is either confidential or for sale, seldom free;
b) Narrowness of participation procedures. Participation procedures
are often, by accident or design, so narrow in scope, or so late
in the decision-making process, that they become useless for
both the decision makers and the people at large - irrespective
of the amount of information or the IT provided;
c) Lack of a communication strategy. Meaningful public participation
requires a definition of a complex mosaic of publics, interests
and lobbies. Language and interfaces must be carefully designed
to address different relevant publics (IT are exceedingly powerful
tools,
| but still just tools); |  |
d) Mistrust of people in Government. Even in democratic countries,
a substantial part of the population does not trust their representatives
or rulers. This renders many formal participatory processes rather
inefficient;
e) Insufficient R&D. Research and development of applications
of IT for public participation have been minimal, especially
if compared with commercial applications. Also research on institutional
and regulatory framework regarding public participation has been
insufficient. This has certainly not been a priority for R&D
sponsors.
In short, although there is still much to do, technology seems
to be the easy part.
5. IT have the potential to be
one of the key tools to improve democracy. The foundations of
the current democratic system were designed two hundred years
ago in a profoundly different world. More and more people in
democratic countries feel or are in practice outside the political
system; and many cultures worldwide do not seem to function at
all with the "western" democracy model, even if they
have no better alternative at hand. IT provide new options for
the enactment of the democratic process and the political organization
of modern societies.
6. Mere participation in reactive
processes is definitely not enough. People need to think about
the way they run their societies and must be pro-active in decision-making
processes that will affect their lives and children. For instance,
how can one deal with global issues such as climates change,
or the disproportionate power of multinational corporations?
How can one use already existing tools, namely those provided
by IT? What new tools need to be created?
7. On the other hand, the new
IT carry their own hazards. For instance, they have the potential
to become powerful tools for the control of societies by only
a few. Television is an old and well-known example, but the Internet
poses new and challenging problems of protection of privacy,
personal data and cultural diversity. Creating safeguards for
those values is extremely important.
8. Our society is severely impaired by many misconceptions about science and technology in general and IT in particular. For instance: the fallacy that technology automatically means progress; the fallacy that technical problems must have technical solutions; the fallacy that pragmatism must rule over equity; the fallacy of the short run; the fallacy that if some information is good, the more the better; the fallacy that if it is on TV or the Web, it must be true; the fallacy that if it is possible to skate successfully on thin ice, it is acceptable to do so; and so on. There is a clear need to improve scientific knowledge and to fight such misconceptions.
In a nutshell, there are currently many tools, namely those provided by the new IT, that can be used to improve public prticipation in decision-making in the near future. The issue now is, what does society want to do with them?
